Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael "Atters" Attree


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔  17:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Michael "Atters" Attree

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person may not meet the notability threshold for Wikipedia; of the references in the article, the majority are self-published or closely connected to the subject. The WP:ADVERT, COI and autobiography problems don't help either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)




 * keep There are 30 citations here. Even if some of them could be said to have some self interest, firstly that is no reason to remove them (it's a reason to not rely on them, which is different), secondly there are still adequate cites that do meet WP:RS to pass WP:N.
 * Yet again. not all sources are required to meet our highest standards. We can use other sources in addition. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔  17:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; (agree with the above, plus...) some of these sources are of an unusually high prominence for notability to come into question; i.e. major newspapers and magazines; it's also worth noting that the references provided span a number of years, indicating protracted notability. It's appropriate that we are cautious of any autobiographical or promotional elements, but that should encourage clean-up rather than be used to justify deletion of an article whose subject otherwise meets WP:GNG and is verifiable. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 12:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.